Search

The Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling: UPHELD!

Right now former President George W. Bush, who appointed John Roberts as Chief Justice, must be having a Dwight Eisenhower moment…

When Eisenhower nominated California’s Republican governor Earl Warren to be the Chief Justice in 1953, he thought he was appointing a conservative jurist. Later, Eisenhower reportedly said that appointing Warren, who took the Court in an unprecedented liberal direction, was the “biggest damn fool mistake” he had ever made. (Warren is one of the people I profile in my new book, The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame).

John Roberts is certainly no Earl Warren. Indeed, his court has been one of the most conservative, pro-business courts in history… but we can be grateful for Roberts’ decision to side with the 5-4 majority to uphold the Obama health care reform law.

This is a big victory for progressive politics. The 2010 health care reform bill didn’t include everything we wanted, but it was an historic milestone. It has already relieved a great deal of heartache and suffering for millions and will do even more as the law is further implemented.

As I ask in my article in yesterday’s Huffington Post, “Why Did Roberts Side with Obama?” There will be many analyses of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including why Roberts not only sided with the majority, but chose to write the majority decision. I don’t think it had much to do with Constitutional matters. My own view is that Roberts was looking at history, at his legacy, and was concerned that future generations would look at the “Roberts Court” as simply a partisan, right-wing pro-corporate court, which it has been so far. Polls show that since Roberts became Chief Justice the American public has lost confidence in the Court. Perhaps he was tired of being seen as a clone of right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a wacko dissent attacking the majority ruling. (The other day, even before the latest ruling, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne called on Scalia to resign from the court).

And perhaps Roberts was taken aback by Obama’s State of the Union attack on the Supreme Court for its outrageous Citizens United decision, which has unleashed a flood of billionaire and corporate money into the current election contests, hijacking democracy in the process.

The Supreme Court ruling can only help Obama’s re-election effort against Romney. That can’t make George W. very happy.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, however, the battle for health care reform isn’t over. Romney will continue to attack Obamacare — a remarkable act of hypocrisy given his role in pushing for a similar approach when he was Massachusetts governor. Republicans will run for Congress this year pledging to repeal Obamacare. Progressives and liberals will still need to mobilize support for the idea of universal health care.

We should learn some lessons from the 2009-2010 battle for health care reform, including the necessity of grassroots mobilization, as I wrote in an article in American Prospect two years ago. Check out this provocative article about what’s needed now, written by Richard Kirsch, who led the grassroots movement for health care reform as head of Health Care for America Now. When it comes to health care policy, the best analyst is my friend John McDonough, former head of Massachusetts Health Care for All, former health policy advisor to Ted Kennedy, and now a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. His column, Health Stew, is required reading, including today’s blog on the Supreme Court ruling.

One Response to “The Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling: UPHELD!”

This is a comment made by a lawyer on a facebook discussion re SCOTUS decision. I had suggested listening to Left Right and Center on KCRW.com Friday afternoon:

“Just listened to it from the website. Pretty good summary of the problems of the decision from John Eastman– and he didn’t mince words about the importance of these problems, going as far to say that this decision opens the doors to increased federal taxing authority of the kind that brought us to the point of revolution against England. Hyperbolic, maybe, but not outrageously so. The taxing powers found in the constitution are very limited and enumerated– and THIS power that Roberts used is not there. This is an extra-constitutional power, and now that it’s been applied, it has precedent and can be repeated as deemed necessary. Therefore ALL people, regardless of political ideology, or regardless of how you view this particular law, should feel a sense of deep trepidation that their federal government has discovered new and sweeping taxing powers that it DID NOT have prior to 6/28/2012.”

Perhaps Roberts really stepped over the line in “legislating from the bench. It also gives Republicans the giant election megaphone of “The largest tax increase in the history of the World and the Democrats cut Medicare to do it.” It’s certainly a mixed bag for Obama and a coup for Medical Industrial Complex. Not so good for regular folks who won’t be able to afford high payments, high deductibles and co-pays.